The story of the 8 year old whose participation at the Eucharistic celebration was "invalidated", highlights a problem.

Some Catholics see criticism of the Church's actions as anti-catholic. I don't.

Many people misunderstand the motives of the Church. The motive for having canon law is uniformity. Catholic, afterall, means universal.

What is confusing for a non-catholic is the perception that the rule is more important than the intent.

The intent should always be primary. Without it, all we have is legalism and Jesus spoke quite a bit about that.

Should we try to follow the rules? Of course. But let's not forget about the intent of one's heart and compassion for other's.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 21, 2004

Answers

I agree, I think the Little Girl's comunion shoudl be validated.It is a rare condiiton that leads tot he substitute, and not sipley preference.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 21, 2004.

It can't be "validated." The Vatican is not the author of that law. Not even the Pope has the authority to consecrate rice.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

Since the little girl never received Holy Communion, there is nothing to "validate". She ate a cracker. Period. That can hardly be "validated" as a sacrament!

This is not a matter of legalism. Legalism involves unnecessary insistence upon adherence to rules. In contrast, the Church always allows exceptions to rules when such exceptions are necessary for health or other important reasons. Whenever the rules governing fasting and abstinence are stated, they are followed by exemptions for those people who cannot adhere to the rules for health reasons. When we were required to abstain from meat on fridays, those whose health might be adversely affected were exempted. When we were required to fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist, or later when the required fast was three hours, those who could not do so for health reasons were exempted. We are required to attend Mass every sunday; but allowances are always made for people who cannot possibly do so. The Church is sensitive, compassionate and reasonable in the enforcement of its rules.

The problem here is that people do not see a clear distinction between rules and definitions. Rules tell us what we must or must not DO. They refer to behavior. Definitions tell us what something IS. They refer to essence. A square is defined as a geometric shape with four equal sides and four equal angles. If the teacher tells the kids to draw a square on their paper, that instruction is the "rule" of the moment. It tells them what they must DO. But being able to do it depends upon knowing the definition. That's how we know that what they drew is in fact a square. If one kid draws a five-sided figure, he didn't draw a square. Period. If his mom says to teacher, "show some compassion, bend the rules a bit and mark him correct", that makes no sense whatsoever. It isn't the teacher's rule that decides what is a square. It's the definition.

The Eucharist is defined as "what Jesus Christ did at the Last Supper", just before commanding the first priests to do the SAME thing in remembrance of Him. That tells us what the Eucharist IS. If we change any essential element of that action of Jesus, then what we are doing no longer meets the definition of the Eucharist, and therefore is not the Eucharist. There may be rules associated with reception of the Eucharist also. Fast for at least one hour; receive at least once a year; don't receive unless you are in the state of grace. These are things we are bound to do in obedience to the authority of the Church. Failure to do them may constitute sin, but such failures on our part do not invalidate the sacrament because they are not part of the essence, the definition, of the sacrament. They are "just rules". But changing something that IS part of the definition of the sacrament itself - the form and matter of the sacrament - does invalidate the sacrament, which means that no sacrament occurs. Baptizing someone with gasoline or motor oil at the scene of an accident is NOT a baptism. The rite of Ordination performed by a bishop over a woman is NOT an Ordination. Reciting marriage vows before a priest when you are already married to someone else is NOT a marriage. And going through the motions of consecration when anything other than pure wheat bread and grape wine are present is NOT the Eucharist. By definition. Rules have nothing to do with it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

I find it hillarious when someone claims that the Church doesn't have the authority to do certain things. Dogma, of course, is not what we are talking about here. The bread of life does not necessarily mean, consecration of unleavened wheat. Jesus used unleavened bread, ok, let's follow that tradition. But this is an instance where the Church is, in fact, demonstrating a handicap by not assessing the situation in a manner that takes culture, science and faith into account.

This is not the first time the Church will have to display her authority in a context of compassion and know-how. Whether you like it or not, the Church will one day address this in a manner that makes it theologically permissable to consecrate a host made of rice. Rice or wheat, it is still the bread of life.

C'mon, wise up guys.

Brian

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 21, 2004.

It is not a matter of "theologically permissible". It is a matter of "theologically possible". Like ordaining women, consecrating rice is not theologically possible - past, present, or future. Therefore it will not ever happen, simply because the impossible cannot ever happen.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 21, 2004.

You're just telling me the same thing over and over without actually giving me any reasons. I gave you plenty, you just keep proving how wrong you are.

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 21, 2004.

john,

I do not understand exactly what you are writing -so, I can not agree or disagree with it...

some succint points I make:

1. Perception can not sway Truth...

2. Truth is Truth; the 'legalisms'/'rules' are based upon Truth; the Magisterium alone interprets the Truth based 'rules'...

3. Intent is never primary -if intent is in conflict with Truth - intent is wrong...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 21, 2004.

Grains, wheat, barley, etc. have been found on grinding stones dating from the time of Jesus in Galilee.

Could the bread given by Jesus have contained barley?

If so, does this change any views?

Think before you answer!!

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 25, 2004.

Second question:

Rice is the staple in many areas of China.

If a consecration is done by a priest using the only available bread, is the consecration valid?

Remember a priest in China may be a member of an "underground church" and may celebrating mass by the only means possible.

Does this make that any less acceptable to God?

Things are never black and white. What does Jesus think of our bickering over what type of bread was offered?

What are our motives?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 25, 2004.

Could the bread given by Jesus have contained barley?

A: There is no possible way of knowing. Therefore there is little point in speculating. However, Jesus used wheat symbolically in speaking of His passion and death (unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit - John 12:24). Therefore wheat was used as a symbol of the sacrifice of His body and blood even before the Eucharist was instituted by Christ as a perpetuation of that same sacrifice.

"Rice is the staple in many areas of China. If a consecration is done by a priest using the only available bread, is the consecration valid?"

A: No. Not unless the bread is valid matter, which means wheat. In many places above the Arctic Circle fish is the staple. Could the consecration of fish constitute a valid Eucharist?

Remember a priest in China may be a member of an "underground church" and may celebrating mass by the only means possible.

A: The only means possible is the means dictated by the Magisterium of the Church. Anything else is not a Mass.

Does this make that any less acceptable to God?

A: Yes it does. Whatsoever the Church binds upon earth is bound in Heaven. He who listens to the Church listens to God Himself; and he who rejects the word of the Church rejects the Word of God.

Things are never black and white.

A: In fact, truth usually is black and white. Dealing in shades of gray is called relativism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2004.

Well, what if some blight wipes out all the wheat, what do you use then? Would cloning from ancient stuff found in a pyramid for the wheat be acceptable? ( I know they've managed to get sourdoughs started from really old stuff. Read the Ed Wood book World Sourdoughs From Antiquity if you can get it at your library). His website:

http://www.sourdo.com/culture.htm

sells 2 Egyptian cultures (not advertising, just posting for info purposes).

Also, even plain old flour has some yeast in it naturally. How was unleavened bread made in the old days? Why isn't it made that way now? Dehydrating is considered the same as "baking"? Why would all the fresh made bread have to be consumed that day as a Eucharist. People eat croutons, and essentially they are "stale" bread. What's the difference?

John, I hear what you're saying. "Bread" is a universal concept. What it is made of can vary from culture to culture.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 25, 2004.

"Well, what if some blight wipes out all the wheat, what do you use then?"

A: An interesting question, though highly unlikely on a worldwide scale. Hopefully we will never have to find out.

"Also, even plain old flour has some yeast in it naturally. How was unleavened bread made in the old days?"

A: The minute amount of yeast as a contaminant in flour has negligible effect during the baking process. You have to add a substantial amount of yeast to get any noticeable leavening effect.

"Why isn't it made that way now?"

A: Well, nothing is made the same way now thanks to technology, but as far as I know (I am no baker) the basic principles have not changed.

"Dehydrating is considered the same as "baking"?"

A: Dehydrating can be done several ways, some of which have nothing to do with baking. However, heating to dryness in a low temperature oven (too low to cause browning of the flour) qualifies as both baking and dehydrating.

"Why would all the fresh made bread have to be consumed that day as a Eucharist. People eat croutons, and essentially they are "stale" bread. What's the difference?"

A: Croutons, like hosts, are dehydrated by baking and therefore can be kept for long periods at room temperature without spoiling. Fresh bread cannot.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2004.

Well, I bake on occasion (using sourdough), and I posted a new thread just on unleavened bread to kind of discuss it further. They didn't have yeast as we know it today back then-- it was all more or less "sourdough", or wild yeast.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 25, 2004.

Dear Friends,

You are overlooking something. The little girl had the choice of receiving her first Communion under the form of wine. Her parents refused that option. I think the real problem is their stubbornness: Christ our God was offered their daughter under the form of wine, which she can receive, and they refused. Bad choice in my book.

Michael

-- Michael Edwards-Ronning (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), August 26, 2004.

Paul,

A square is defined as a geometric shape with four equal sides and four equal angles. If the teacher tells the kids to draw a square on their paper, that instruction is the "rule" of the moment. It tells them what they must DO. But being able to do it depends upon knowing the definition. That's how we know that what they drew is in fact a square. If one kid draws a five-sided figure, he didn't draw a square. Period. If his mom says to teacher, "show some compassion, bend the rules a bit and mark him correct", that makes no sense whatsoever. It isn't the teacher's rule that decides what is a square. It's the definition.

I like this example, in that a given teacher can say "o.k., I'll give the kid an ""A"" anyway" but his figure won't be a square, it'll still be a pentagram.

On your part about baptising with motor oil, I've got a "hypothetical" situation for you: Let's say one was in the middle of nowhere and pure water was NOT readily available, and you had a baby who appeared about to expire, if they were baptized with a small amount of saliva would that be considered valid (being mostly water and the closest one could come TO water) or not?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 26, 2004.

John,

The annual wheat consumption in China is roughly 250lbs/person. Don't need 250lbs to make 52 communion wafers or 365 whichever it is. Going with 52, you'd need 10grams per year or 1/46th of a pound - if entirely from wheat. Oh I forgot the Holy Days...

Also, I remember times when a priest would break the smaller host into 4 pieces. But, he was probably being stingy.

Frank,

Blood is mostly water, too. So is urine. I've heard somewhere that saliva doesn't pour or sprinkle well, though it does drip, smear, and leave stains. Makes a mark I guess, but not an indelible one. Anyway, it's probably hard to get saliva in the middle of nowhere with a baby about to expire. Probably better to carry a bottle of water around with a baby in the middle of nowhere or to give birth somewhere else or better yet, baptize before leaving for the middle of nowhere.

Speaking of pentagrams and bodily fluids, I might need an exorcism now.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 26, 2004.

Oh I forgot, it's harder to get grape/wine than wheat in China or just about anywhere else except for vineyards.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 26, 2004.

Sorry! bad math. China Per Capita Wheat = .081 metric tons, roughly 178 pounds.

China Profile

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 26, 2004.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia ...

"Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained. On the other hand, it is never allowable to baptize with an invalid liquid."

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 26, 2004.

Thanks for the info Paul.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 27, 2004.

By the way, Paul and the rest of you,

I have heard that the ancient "Thomas" Church of India used rice cakes for the Mass, for centuries. What do you think of that?

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), August 31, 2004.

I have never heard that, Michael. Where did you hear it? It would truly be tragic if all the Christians in that part of the world were denied access to the Eucharist for centuries. But I doubt very much that it is true.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

Paul, admittedly my source is second hand. I read it in a book by Adrian Hastings, "Theology of a Protestant Catholic". He mentions in passing that the Thomas Christians of India, by sheer climate and geographical limitations, had to use a kind of rice cake for Mass. I am unsure where to double check this information.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), September 13, 2004.

Michael, a quick search will show the absurdity of the idea that "climate and geographical considerations" prevented Indians from obtaining wheat. Wheat was grown in India from prehistoric times - in fact, long before it was grown in Europe. And the two top wheat-producing countries in the world? - India and China! The USA comes third.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 14, 2004.

Thank you, Steve! It is good to receive correct information on this matter. I guess Adrian Hastings was wrong--God bless his soul.

Cordially,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), September 14, 2004.